1

Postfeminist Fatherhood in the Animated Feature Films

Chicken Little and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

The animated films Chicken Little (Disney, 2005) and Cloudy with a Chance of
Meatballs (Sony, 2009) are in many respects conventional and unexceptional. They portray
mainly white, middle-class characters (even when they are in the guise of dogs, ducks and
chickens), living in worlds in which even alien families come in the form of heteronormative
nuclear families, where daddy drives the space ship. They are also conventional in the way
that they are paternally themed, privileging father-son relationships, to the exclusion of
mothers.1 In this analysis, however, I suggest that although the films are situated within a
traditional framework of representation of paternal behavior, they deviate from earlier
portrayals of father-son relationships by demanding a different type of fathering, a new
culture of fatherhood (LaRossa, 1997, p. 11), which is reflective of postfeminist
fatherhood (Hamad, 2013, p. 1). Postfeminist fatherhood, like more traditional narratives of
fathering, marginalizes mothering (Hamad, 2013, p. 4), and Chicken and Cloudy follow the
traditional representation of fatherhood in that sense. What makes these two films particularly
worth investigating, however, is the way these postfeminist fathers are constructed in
opposition to two traditional stereotypes: the oppressive father and the pal. These films
demand a change in paternal attitudes, requiring fathers to adapt to their sons needs, rather
than the sons conforming to the fathers expectations. The films thus contain a didactic
message to both fathers and sons that within postfeminist masculinity older parenting models
are no longer viable.
One of the reasons this study is dealing specifically with father-son relationships, rather
than simply parent-child relationships, is that animated entertainment for children on film and
television has tended to present mainly male characters, for a mainly male viewing audience
(Hentges & Case, 2013, p. 322; Oliver & Green, 2001, p. 67). When parenting issues are
central to the story, they concern a father and son, and the male child protagonist almost never
has a sister (Birthisel, 2014, p. 346). 2 The centrality of the father-son relationship continues in
the twenty-first century, in films such as Ice Age (Twentieth Century Fox, 2002), Finding
Nemo (Pixar, 2003), Brother Bear (Disney, 2003), Shark Tale (DreamWorks, 2004), Chicken
Little (Disney, 2005), Barnyard (Nickelodeon, 2006), Ratatouille (Disney, 2007), Cloudy with
a Chance of Meatballs (Sony 2009), How to Train Your Dragon (DreamWorks 2010), Mr
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

2
Peabody and Sherman (DreamWorks, 2014) and The Lego Movie (Warner Brothers, 2014). In
all these films, the relationship between a biological father, or other father-figure, and a son,
even when not the main plotline, is an important part of the story. The privileging of the
father-son plot is further underscored by an absence of mothers. The mother either dies early,
as in, for example, Ice Age and Finding Nemo, or she is missing from the beginning and never
even mentioned, as in Ratatouille.
Of the films listed above, Finding Nemo, Chicken Little, Cloudy with a Chance of
Meatballs and How to Train Your Dragon stand out through their emphasis on the father-son
conflict, giving it almost equal weight to the adventure, be it kidnapping, alien invasion,
amazing inventions or the taming of dragons. However, although Nemos father Marlin can
be said to exhibit some of the traits of a postfeminist father, traits regarded by some critics as
a kind of mothering (Brydon, 2009), father and son spend most of the film separated, which
makes it less suitable for this analysis. Dragon is similarly less apt, since the conflict between
father and son, Stoick and Hickup, is resolved by Hickup proving himself to his father
through heroic deeds, and Stoicks acceptance of his son is given minimal screen time. What
distinguishes Chicken and Cloudy from Nemo and Dragon, as well as the rest of the films
listed above, I argue, is not only that they both include extended scenes in which the fathers
acknowledge their shortcomings, and articulate their acceptance of their sons, but also that the
relationship between father and son is discussed throughout the narratives: Chicken analyzes
the relationship continuously throughout the film, with his friends, but also with his father,
and the protagonist of Cloudy, Flint, repeatedly voices his needs, desires and demands to his
father, all through the narrative. In a departure from previous animated treatments of the
theme of father-son conflict, both films thus suggest that a father-son relationship is an
ongoing process, something that must be negotiated, and, most importantly, on the sons
terms.
Until recently, scholars analyzing animated films have concerned themselves almost
solely with Disney films, 3 often focusing on the potentially detrimental effect on children of
the values they promote, and the forms of identifications they offer (Giroux, 2010, p. 7). It
is argued that the Disney corporation, and the way it relates to its audience, for example in
attempting to substitute consumerism for democratic citizenship, are a cause for concern
(Giroux, 2010, p. 13). Approaching the films as agents of socialization, some scholars
analyze the way the films enculturate children, that is, what the children learn about the
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

3
world through the films (Lugo-Lugo & Bloodsworth-Lugo, 2009, p. 167). Freemans (2005)
claim that animated films function as portable professors, (p. 85) teaching children how to
relate to society, is often invoked. Many of the studies thus resonate with a concern as to how
children are affected by what they watch, and call for parental assistance in interpretation,
for adults to help the children analyze what they see (Towbin, Haddock, Schindler
Zimmerman, Lund & Tanner, 2004, p. 40). This article, however, will place less emphasis on
Chicken and Cloudy as vehicles of conservative ideology, socializing children into a Western,
patriarchal, consumerist culture, although they fulfil some of those criteria too. The focus lies
instead on the films as postfeminist responses to cultural images of fatherhood in the US, and
as advocates for change, for a new culture of fatherhood. In doing this, I will follow the lead
of King, Lugo-Lugo, and Bloodsworth Lugo (2010), and open up the discussion beyond the
production of the Disney company, since the father-son relationship is also central in films by
Sony, DreamWorks, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Brothers, as is evident in the list of
films above. However, unlike the other narratives, Chicken and Cloudy argue for a
renegotiation of the relationship between father and son.

US fathers in society and in cultural productions

In many studies of fatherhood, both historical and literary, there is a pervasive notion of
what is often termed the traditional father: stern, tyrannical, emotionally and physically
distant. However, scholars tend to locate this type of father in a past before the period under
study. As LaRossa (1997) notes in a socio-political study of American fatherhood in the
1920s and 1930s, there is a present-day belief that yesterdays fathers not only did not want
to be involved with their children, but did not even give the subject much thought (p. 4).
Thus sociological research on men of the post-war period contrast them to a more traditional
image of absent, authoritarian fathers (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2003, p. 44). Research on
early twentieth-century fatherhood in turn locates the traditional father in the late nineteenth
century, yet research on the nineteenth century father places him in the colonial era (Johansen,
2001, pp. 4-5), or in Europe (Kimmel, 2012, p. 38). The oppressive father is never found in
the period scholars are studying; he is what the fathers of the period under scrutiny position
themselves against. Indeed, social historians invariably find men who were both emotionally
and physically present in their childrens lives (Davidoff, 1987; Johansen, 2001; Tosh, 2007 ).
There is thus a difference between what fathers do and what fathers are expected to do, or are
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

4
perceived as doing, what LaRossa (1997) refers to as the conduct of fatherhood and the
culture of fatherhood, and the oppressive father turns out to be part of the culture, rather
than conduct, of fatherhood (p. 11, original emphasis).
Although the authoritarian father in reality seems rather illusive, he is very much in
evidence in the US cultural imagination, particularly in nineteenth-century literature
(Armengol-Carrera, 2008; Johansen, 2001; Leverenz, 1998), which in turn will have
influenced other cultural productions, such as animated films. In a study of 26 Disney films
produced during the twentieth century, more than half of them present fathers as controlling,
aggressive, protective disciplinarians that expect their children to earn their love rather than
giving it unconditionally (Tanner, Haddock, Schindler Zimmerman & Lund, 2003, p. 363). I
suggest that the way the father-son relationship is played out in Cloudy is a reaction against,
and critique of, this image.
The other cultural image of the father is as economic provider, pal and male role
model (LaRossa, 1997, p. 1), a model of fatherhood that, although it developed in earlier
periods (Leverenz, 2003, p. 25), became institutionalized in the US in the 1920s and 1930s
(LaRossa, 1997, p. 1). Later fictional iterations include the bumbling dads of the 1950s
(Hamamoto 1989, p. 17) exemplified by Ozzie Nelson in The Adventures of Ozzie and
Harriet (Gilbert, 2005, p. 142) and the 1980s new, enlightened, participatory dad, in for
example The Cosby Show (Douglas & Michaels, 2005, p. 106) as well as the sensitive,
nurturing, postfeminist men in, for instance, Family Ties and Growing Pains (Dow, 2006, p.
121). Hapless, yet well-meaning fathers learning on the job continue in such films as Daddy
Day Care (Sony, 2003) and Old Dogs ( Disney, 2009). Outside films, the cultural image of
father as pal, as an, often bumbling, playmate, is still prominent, particularly in relation to
very young children, as studies of parentcraft literature has shown (Sunderland, 2000).
Chicken suggests that although the father-as-pal can provide a good, stable home, jovial
benevolence and good intentions are not enough to help a child cope with emotional
problems.
There is an emphasis on father-son relationships in live action films as well. Bruzzi
(2005) terms it Hollywoods preoccupation with the father, (p. 153), whereas Rattigan and
McManus (1992) have traced what they regard as a virtual obsession with father-son
relations through more than 150 films in the 1980s alone, making up what they call a
father/son cycle (p. 15). These fathers are of the traditional, oppressive type. Discussing
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

5
the depiction of fatherhood in films from the 1990s onwards, Bruzzi notes that although they
demonstrate a greater diversity in the representation of fatherhood than in previous decades,
the films appear to desire a return to the strong, conventional father, that is, the traditional
father (2005, p. 191). Bruzzi mentions in passing that in such films, which sustain the ideal
of an omniscient, guiding father, sons often seek to emulate the father or seek his approval
(2005, p. 158, p. 159). She describes such a search for approval as positive, since it teaches
the sons to appreciate their fathers values and realize why they are worth upholding (2005, p.
159). Rattigan and Thomas on the other hand, pointing to an undercurrent of guilt (1992, p.
16) demonstrate the negative side of such relationships. They discuss how the characters
suffer from a guilt of inadequacy, which is caused by the sons not living up to their fathers
expectations, whether these expectations relate to academic or athletic success, or social skills
(1992, p. 16). A recurring theme of the father-son film, Rattigan and Thomas note, is that
Sons must seek atonement with fathers (1992, p. 18). As both Bruzzi, Rattigan and Thomas
argue, Hollywood films have been preoccupied with how to shore up a masculinity perceived
to be under threat, and the solution offered is for a return to the traditional father, who knows
best. Such a model of fathering may comfort the fathers, but as the films show, is it hard on
the sons. In presenting the sons in Chicken and Cloudy as undersized, weak, accident-prone
and generally embarrassing, the films draw on the tradition of sons seeking atonement for
their guilt of inadequacy, but I suggest that this tradition is subverted in the way the narratives
are played out. Unlike in the films discussed by Bruzzi, Rattigan and Thomas, the fathers,
their actions and beliefs, are not valorized. Instead it is the fathers who are required to live up
their sons expectations, and the fathers who must literally seek the sons forgiveness for their
own inadequacies.

Postfeminism, masculinity and fatherhood

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, a new model of fathering has begun to be
articulated, what Hamad has termed postfeminist fatherhood (2013, p.1). Postfeminism as a
term is, as Gill (2007) states, overloaded with different meanings, and although the concept
has been in use for over twenty years there is still no consensus of what it means (p. 147).
Clark (2014) suggests two definitions: the period that comes after the end of second-wave
feminism, and a conceptual framework in which the tenets of feminism are assimilated
into the cultural imaginary and social relations (p. 447). This assimilation can manifest
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

6
itself in different ways. Wooden and Gillam (2014), acknowledging the complexity of the
concept in their analysis of masculinity in Pixar films, use postfeminism as a relatively neutral
concept, referring to a worldview where women expect to reap the rewards of feminism, to
have the same rights as men. Tasker and Negra (2007) are more wary, seeing postfeminism as
a way to evoke and acknowledge feminism, only to dismiss it as a thing of the past (p. 21, p.
1). McRobbie (2004), for her part, argues that postfeminism constructs feminism as
redundant, a spent force now that equality between sexes is supposedly achieved. To her,
feminism is invoked in order that it is relegated to the past (p. 262). Postfeminism may thus
become a way of circumventing feminism, of re-establishing patriarchal structures. Owing to
the contradictory nature of postfeminist discourse (Gill, 2007, p. 149), narratives
constructed within it may thus express both rejection and celebrations of feminist gains
(Clark, 2014, p. 448) and what appears to be a broadly progressive text may exhibit
surprisingly conservative traits, as Wooden and Gillam remark throughout their book.
Pointing to how cinematic fatherhood has come to articulate a new hegemonic masculinity,
(2013, p. 15), Hamad follows Tasker, Negra and McRobbie, arguing that postfeminist
fatherhood is predicated on a marginalization of motherhood (2013, p. 3). She references
Modleskis (1991) observation that men may respond to the feminist demand for their
participation in childrearing in such a way as to make women more marginal than ever (p.
87). To Hamad then, postfeminist fatherhood may turn out to simply be old patriarchal
structures in a new form.
The move towards postfeminist fatherhood may be traced back to the second half of the
1990s and the changing way US media structured news accounts of stay-at-home fathers
(Vavrus, 2002). In her study of news reports of what became termed Mr. Moms, Vavrus
argues that the news stories worked to normalize male nurturance and domesticity by
suggesting that to be a househusband was to be properly masculine (p. 353). The Mr. Moms
of the late 1990s, supporting working wives and upholding the heterosexual nuclear family,
could be said to have paved the way for the caring, nurturing, single father, who can be both
Mom and Dad. Vavruss account points to the complicated nature of postfeminist fatherhood
in that it would seem to be a positive development that men participate in childcare to a
greater extent than before, yet this participation can be used to uphold conservative and
restrictive values and structures (p. 353). As Dow (2006) notes, these new fathers may make
the need for continued feminist critique of patriarchy even more suspect (p.129).
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

7
I posit, then, that the model of fatherhood represented in Chicken and Cloudy draws on
postfeminist masculinity, which allows them to challenge hegemonic masculinity. Earlier
animated films, when avoiding the oppressive father, have tended to present the character as
bungling or inept (Wynns & Rosenfeld, 2003, p. 103). Chicken and Cloudy are showing
the fathers as more skilled, examples of a model of fatherhood that is (or becomes)
emotionally articulate, domestically competent, skilled in managing the quotidian
practicalities of parenthood (Hamad, 2013, p. 2). The fathers have therefore incorporated
some aspects of postfeminist fatherhood, since they are more than capable caring for their
children, managing to feed and clothe them all that is left for them is to become emotionally
aware and articulate.

The films
Chicken Little takes its premise from the folk tale variously also known as Chicken
Licken or Henny Penny, categorized as Aarne-Thompson type 20C (Thompson, 1961), in
which a hen or a chick mistakes a falling acorn for a piece of the sky, and, together with other
animals, decides to go and warn the king. The main protagonist of the eponymous film, set in
the small town of Oakey Oaks, also mistakenly sounds the alarm: first because he thinks the
sky is falling, although it later turns out to be a piece from an alien spaceship. A year later, he
sounds the alarm because he has seen the actual spaceship, although it becomes invisible
before people arrive. In both instances Chicken is assumed to be lying and his father, Buck
Cluck, ashamed of his son, is forced to apologize to the townspeople for the havoc Chicken
has caused. The first time it happens the story becomes national news. The second time, the
visiting aliens, Melvin and Tina, have accidentally left their son Kirby behind, and when they
discover this, they attack the town with a whole fleet of space ships. In the panic and
destruction, Chicken, his friends, and his father manage to re-unite Kirby with his family, and
the invasion is aborted. Afterward, all the misunderstandings are cleared up, and Chicken
becomes a hero.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is loosely based on the 1978 picture book with the
same title by Judy Barrett. In the book, a grandfather turns a mishap at breakfast into a
bedtime story of the wonderful town Chewandswallow where no one has to cook, because
food falls from the sky. Keeping the theme of food raining from the sky, the film tells the
story of a little boy, Flint Lockwood, living in the failing island fishing town Swallow Falls.
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

8
Flint wants to become an inventor, but his inventions have a tendency to malfunction. The
only person who believes in him is his mother, Fran. After eight minutes, the film jumps ten
years into the future, when Flint is now a young man, working in his father Tims tackle shop,
still trying to invent something useful. He invents the Flint Lockwood Diatonic Mutating
Dynamic Food Replicator (FLDMDFR). The machine, malfunctioning like all the other
inventions, ends up floating in the sky, but it turns out that Flint can program it to rain food
down on the town. Initially, the machine revives the town, the name of which is changed to
Chewandswallow, turning it into a tourist attraction. After a while, however, the hamburgers,
sausages and steaks become bigger and bigger, and in the end the machine threatens the lives
not only of the people in the town, but in the rest of the world. In order to avert disaster, Flint,
together with his father, the weather reporter Sam Sparks and the camera man Manny,
destroys the machine and becomes a hero.4
Although the characters in Chicken are anthropomorphized animals, whereas those in
Cloudy are humans, there are some striking similarities, such as the childrens status as
geeks and outsiders, and the way they appear to disappoint and embarrass their widowed
fathers. Another similarity is that of body type. Buck Cluck and Tom Lockwood are both big,
burly men, whereas their sons are small and weak. Both sets of fathers and sons thus fit the
dichotomy Birthisel (2014) sees manifested in animated films, between large, strong and
respected men and smaller, weaker men who cannot meet the expectations created by
larger-bodied men and have to make up for that through grit, determination, or unique
skills (2014, p. 342). This, as Wooden and Gillam (2014) discuss, is a tragically familiar
social paradigm that runs through American society in general, cutting across socioeconomic, ethnic and regional differences, in which bigger, stronger, and more athletic men
and boys are invariably understood as superior to smaller, more delicate, or intellectual ones
(p. 34). This social paradigm is part of Connell and Messerschmidts (2005) hegemonic
masculinity, which to a certain extent is established through exemplars of masculinity (p.
846). Hegemonic masculinity is contrasted against subordinate masculinity that excludes men
and boys from the circle of legitimacy (Connell, 2005), often through labels such as nerd
and geek (p. 79). Both Buck and Tim can be viewed as such exemplars of masculinity:
Bucks wide chest and stomach, and thick arms stand in stark contrast to Chickens tiny body,
with its spindly arms and legs. Chicken is so short that he does not even reach up to his
fathers waist, and his geekiness is further underscored by his glasses. The discrepancy
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

9
between Tim and Flint is almost as great: Tim has a very thick neck, broad shoulders and
thick arms. Most of the time his eyes are hidden under very bushy eyebrows. Flint, like
Chicken, is short with thin arms and legs. He retains a slender build and large child-like eyes
even as an adult, never reaching his fathers height. His obsession with inventions, which
never work, further marks him out as a geek. The narratives thus construct the children as
ranking low in the hierarchy of masculinity (Birthisel, 2014, p. 345) and initially it appears
that the boys are required to compensate for their lack of masculinity through unique skills
(p. 342) in order to be acknowledged by their fathers.
Chicken is devastated by his fathers failure to support him publicly and privately, when
he is accused of lying about the sky falling and the alien space ship. However, he interprets
the lack of support as his own fault, as the inevitable and justifiable outcome of him failing
his father. For most of the film, Chicken is trying to find a way to make his father proud of
him, to atone for his guilt of inadequacy. Similarly, the adult Flints attempts at inventing
something useful are motivated by a desire to make his father proud of him, and he is
repeatedly appealing to his father for validation. Flints need for his fathers approval even
outcompetes his budding love affair with weather reporter Sam. It is only after he and his
father have reconciled that Flint and Sam can build a relationship.
The films thus appear to follow the established formula of father-son films as outlined
by Rattigan and McManus (1992), in that both children seem to fail their fathers and try to
make up for that failure. However, as the films progress, they deviate from this pattern. The
fathers are forced to learn three important lessons: to support their sons emotionally,
accepting them as they are; to listen to them and communicate their own emotions; and to
acknowledge their own faults, and to be willing to change. In the end, the sons are accepted,
not for what they have achieved, but for who they are.

Analysis
Failing to be supportive
Both films present the fathers as failing to provide emotional support for their sons,
albeit in different ways. Buck can be viewed as an example of LaRossas father as economic
provider, pal and male role model. He certainly provides for his son, since they can afford a
large house and a car, and the boy looks up to him for his sporting successes in his youth. In
general, theirs appears to be a harmonious and friendly, if somewhat superficial, relationship.
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

10
Yet, Buck is unaware of how much Chicken suffers from what Buck calls his little mistake,
seemingly confusing an acorn with a piece of the sky. In a scene early in the film, Buck,
evidently puzzled by the national interest the mistake has generated, lists all the spinoff
products: a book, a board game, spoons, commemorative plates, a website, bumper stickers,
and finally Crazy Little Chicken: The Movie. Chicken is visibly upset by this recitation, but
Buck is oblivious. Rather than comforting him, he advises his son not to draw attention to
himself, to lay low, to live his life as a game of hide-and-seek where the goal is never to be
found, ever. It is not clear whether he says this to protect Chicken or himself, but Chicken
interprets the statement as his father finding him embarrassing.
The clearest evidence of Bucks failing as a father, however, is his lack of emotional
support. Following the panic Chicken causes at the beginning of the film, which leads to car
crashes, the destruction of a movie theater and a water tower, Buck steps in and apologizes
for his sons behavior, telling Chicken to stop claiming that it was not an acorn falling from
the sky: this is embarrassing enough. Chicken is devastated that his father does not believe
him. Buck excuses Chickens action with the claim kids do crazy stuff and the epithet crazy
follows Chicken throughout the film. A reporter labels him insane, and he is repeatedly
referred to by other characters as the crazy chicken.
The second betrayal occurs when Chicken asks his father to believe in the now invisible
spaceship. Again, people are angry. Chicken appeals to his father: Dad, Im not making this
up. You gotta believe me this time. Buck, his eyes darting back and forth between his son
and his angry neighbors, is visibly torn, but finally chooses to abandon his son: No son, I
dont. He then apologizes to the adults: I cant tell you how embarrassed I am, folks. In
both instances, Buck chooses his relationship to the townspeople over that to his son and his
repeated use of embarrassing reinforces the notion of Chickens guilt of inadequacy. Buck
is a fair-weather father, happy to acknowledge his son when he secures a baseball victory
thats my boy out there but will not support him when the boy needs it the most.
Tims failure to support his son is less public, but no less emotionally devastating. He is
a less hands-on father than Buck, appearing mainly as a silent, disapproving figure on the
margins. In the early part of the film there are no scenes where father and son enjoy each
others company. Instead Tim is presented as being on the receiving end when Flints
inventions explode or malfunction in some other way. When Flints show-and-tell at school
fails and he becomes despondent, his mother asks Tim to talk to his son. Tim proves to be
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

11
literally lost for words he can only speak in fishing metaphors that Flint does not
understand, and is therefore unable to comfort the boy. Later on, Tim asks Flint to give up
this inventing thing and get a real job, which prompts Flint to comment in a voice-over that
although his mother had been dead for ten years, Dad still didnt understand me the way she
did. Flint repeatedly turns to his father for validation, but Tim never replies. In contrast to
Buck, who thinks that he is doing a good job of being a father, Tim is shown as playing
almost no part in Flints life, not taking any interest in what he does. Tim is wary of the
technology Flint uses, and is not willing to learn about it. The narratives thus depict how the
two, oppositional, types of fatherhood both cause fathers to place their own needs before their
sons, and to fail to give support when needed.

Learning to listen and communicate

Chicken and Cloudy both emphasize the importance of father-son communication,
demonstrating how a failure to communicate makes the children unhappy. Disregarding his
friend Abbys advice that he should tell his father about his hurt feelings, that they need
closure, Chicken opts for winning his fathers love through sports. He joins the school
baseball team. Although spectacularly bad at it, since he is so small, he saves the team at the
bottom of the ninth, allowing it to beat a rival school for the first time in many years.
Afterwards father and son seem to bond over the success and they agree that they do not need
closure; they do not need talk about the acorn incident. Later on, when Chicken finds a
piece of an alien space ship, he almost tells his father, but loses his nerve at the last moment.
Buck, rather than pressing the matter, thinks that he has handled the situation well and
congratulates himself: you gotta be ready to listen to your children, even if theyve nothing
to say. Although Buck recognizes the importance of listening, he has not learned how to do
it. Instead he happily bumbles on, thinking he is a good father.
It takes an alien invasion for Buck to be ready to listen properly. When Melvin and Tina
attack the town with a fleet of spaceships, Chicken tries to return Kirby to his parents, but is
hindered by his father, who again does not listen. Chicken finally snaps and accuses Buck of
not paying attention to him and of not being supportive: youre never there for me. Seeing
Kirby, a tuft of hair with three eyes and three legs, Buck realizes that Chicken was right all
along, and acknowledges his sons feelings and emotional needs for the first time. He
specifically apologizes for making Chicken think that he had to earn his fathers love, stating
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

12
that his love is unconditional. In a reversal of the traditional trope of atonement, it is now
Buck who must seek atonement with his son for his own guilt of inadequacy.
Tim, on the other hand, not only does not listen, but he also cannot express his feelings
for his son. When he is not forbidding Flint from continuing with his inventions, or
questioning the safety of the FLDMDFR, he continues to speak in fishing metaphors,
although Flint still finds them incomprehensible. Most of the time, however, Tim is simply
silent, refusing to respond to Flints enthusiasm, withdrawing when support is demanded. In
the end, it is Flints technology that allows Tim to communicate his feelings. A thoughttranslator, which Flint built for his pet monkey Steve, finally allows Tim to express how
overwhelmed he is by Flints intelligence and capabilities, and how proud he is of him:
Youre talented; youre a total original and your lab is breathtaking. He also explains that
the fishing metaphors are his way of expressing his love. Tim needs help from his son to be
able to communicate what he feels. He is then finally able to state that love without the use of
the translator, and gives his son a hug. The trajectory in both narratives is thus from a
traditional, father-knows-best approach to a more child-centered kind of parenting focusing
on two-way communication.

Seeking atonement
Both boys, each in their own way, seek atonement with [their] fathers (Rattigan and
McManus, 1992 p. 19). They try to find ways to please their fathers, to win their love. The
word proud resonates throughout both films and it is significant that both sons believe that
their fathers approval is something that needs to be earned, that is not freely given. Chicken
decides to join the baseball team because then finally Dad will have reason to be proud of
me, as he says to his friends. Flint, on the other hand, repeatedly appeals to his father for his
validation. Discussing his ideas for the FLDMDFR he states You would be so proud of me,
dad. Similarly, when the machine is up and running, he mentions the praise he has received
from the mayor and adds: Arent you proud of me? Yet, in each instance, Tim withholds
any approval, refusing to answer.
The message communicated in both films is that when a father-son relationship does not
work, it is the father who needs to change, not the son. As is shown, Chickens baseball
success is not enough. When he needs his fathers support later, his father fails him again. It is
not Chicken who must become less of an embarrassment, the narrative suggests; it is Buck
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

13
who must learn to love his son no matter what happens. Buck learns this lesson when he
realizes not only that Chicken was right all along, but how much he has hurt his son by not
supporting him. Now he embraces the new role as father: crazy supportive, thats me. The
word crazy takes on a new meaning, no longer descriptive of Chickens failure, but of his
fathers changed attitude. When Chicken again appeals to Buck I can do this, you gotta
believe me this time, he does believe him, and his support enables Chicken to become a hero.
Thus, the narrative suggests that the onus is not on Chicken to adapt to his fathers
expectations, but for Buck to adapt to his sons needs. It is not Chicken who has to earn his
fathers love, but Buck who has to earn Chickens. There is more to being a father than being
an economic provider, a role model and a pal; the postfeminist father must also display
emotional competence: he needs to provide emotional comfort and support.
Flint, who is in his early twenties throughout most of the film, is less eager to change to
earn his fathers love, but more vocal about his needs. Although Tim forbids him to continue
with his inventions, Flint never complies, thinking that if he can only succeed in his work, his
father will acknowledge him. He appeals several times to his father, asking him to be proud of
him. He also demands to be loved for his own sake: When are you going to accept that this is
who I am, instead of trying to get me to work in some boring tackle shop? Tims response to
these demands is to withdraw from his son: I guess Ill just get out of your way. Since they
are both adults, the conflict lies on a different plane than in Chicken, but it is evident that Flint
cannot sort out his life until his relationship with his father is resolved.
As in Chicken, it takes an external crisis of gigantic proportions to make Tim change.
When it appears that the FLDMDFR will destroy the world, Tim not only shows himself
supportive, but even manages to take the step into Flints world. In order to avert disaster,
Tim is forced to try to learn how to use modern technology. Tim and his father both dislike
each others worlds, but it is Tim who must learn to adapt, by learning to attach a file to an email and sending it to the computer onboard the FLDMDFR. In the end, Tim has learnt how
to tell his son that he loves him, and he has made the effort of connecting with Flints world.
In this way, both films argue that rather than the son living up to the expectations of the
father, whether a new pal or an old-style oppressor, it is the father who must make sure that he
fulfills the emotional and physical needs of his son. Not to do so may lead to the destruction
of the world, either through the invasion of aliens, or through the sons disastrous inventions.

Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

14
Role models for fathers and sons
It could be argued that the films function as Freemans portable professors, with a
message aimed at fathers and sons. In both films, other fathers function as didactic models in
order to illustrate what a good father should be like, to the father characters, to the child
protagonists, and directly to the audience. In Chicken, it is the three-legged, three-eyed alien,
Melvin, who explains to Buck what good fathering entails. The narrative has Melvin
apologize for overreacting and launching an invasion, with the explanation: Im a dad. And
you know how it is with your kids when they need you. You do whatever it takes. To be a
good father is to do absolutely everything in order to keep the child happy and safe, whether it
is defending him when he seems to be lying, or invading an alien planet.
In Cloudy there is also a character to hand to demonstrate what fatherhood should really
be about, even though he does not explain this directly to Tim. Instead, the local police officer
Earl Devereaux repeatedly articulates to Flint what can be expected of a good father: You
know how fathers always try to express their love and appreciation for their sons. He has no
problems telling his son that he loves him and the son is safe in the knowledge of his fathers
emotions: I know dad. You tell me every day. In this way Flint and the audience are
informed of what good fatherhood entails, and in the end Tim learns it too.
There is also a note of warning in Cloudy: if a father does not make his son feel loved,
the son may be open to exploitation by other father figures. The mayor of Chewandswallow
uses Flints need to be loved to manipulate him into misusing the FLDMDFR and thus
indirectly place the world in jeopardy. When Tim disapproves of the machine, and wants Flint
to turn it off, the mayor uses Flints emotional needs against him: I always felt that you are
like a son to me. And Im going to be so proud of you. Because Flints desire to be loved has
not been met, he is vulnerable to the mayors flattery, and almost destroys the world. Through
these models, and anti-models, the narratives teach the characters, and the audience, what is to
be expected from a postfeminist father.

Conclusion
The animated feature films Chicken Little and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs are
situated within a patriarchal, heteronormative system, and can hardly be said to address issues
of class, ethnicity, race or sexual identity.5 Like animated films of earlier periods, the fathers
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

15
involvement with their sons is predicated on the absence of the mothers. Unlike earlier
animated films, however, the father-characters are shown as competent carers for their
children, aligning the narratives with other contemporary visual texts drawing on postfeminist
notions of masculinity and fatherhood. The films are also unusual in the amount of screen
time given over to the childrens demand for a renegotiation of the father-son relationship. In
the end, Chicken and Flint win their fathers approval, not because of heroic acts, of proving
themselves by embracing their fathers values, or becoming exemplars of masculinity all
Chicken does is return a missing child, and Flint destroys a doomsday device of his own
making but because the fathers realize that it is their responsibility to give it. Both films
draw on hegemonic masculinity in the presentation of the fathers, but challenge it, showing
how the earlier models of parenting, the oppressive father and the pal, are ineffective and
potentially damaging, and that the position of father no longer automatically confers authority
and valorization. What is needed, the films argue, is both a new conduct of fatherhood and a
new culture of fatherhood (LaRossa 1997, p. 11), in which a mans masculinity is defined
by his ability to care for and nurture his child. As Connell emphasizes, hegemony is a mobile
relation (2005, p. 77), which suggests that hegemonic masculinity can be challenged and
redefined. Such a new hegemonic masculinity appears to be gaining ground (Hamad 2013). It
needs to be problematized, as both Hamad and McRobbie have shown, particularly in its
position towards motherhood, but the fact that a process of renegotiation has begun, could
perhaps be a cause for cautious optimism.

REFERENCES
Armengol-Carrera, J. (2008). Where are fathers in American literature? Re-visiting
fatherhood in U.S. literary history. The Journal of Mens Studies, 16, 211-226. doi:
10.3149/jms.1602.211.
strm, B. (2015). The symbolic annihilation of mothers in popular culture: Single Father
and the death of the mother. Forthcoming in Feminist Media Studies, 15.
Axelrod, M. (2003). Beauties and their beasts & other motherless tales from the wonderful
world of Disney. In. B. Ayres (Ed.), The Emperors Old Groove: Decolonizing Disneys
Magic Kingdom (pp. 29-38). New York: Lang.

Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

16
Ayres, B. (2003). The wonderful world of Disney: the world that made the man and the man
that made the world. In. B. Ayres (Ed.) The Emperors Old Groove: Decolonizing
Disneys Magic Kingdom (pp.15-25). New York: Lang.
Bell, E., Haas, L. & Sells, L. (Ed.) (1995) From Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film,
Gender, and Culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Birthisel, J. (2014). How body, heterosexuality and patriarchal entanglements mark nonhuman characters as male in CGI-animated childrens films. Journal of Children and
Media, 8, 336-352. doi: 10.1080/17482798.2014.960435
Brooks, K. (2008). Consuming Innocence: Popular Culture and Our Children. Queensland:
University of Queensland Press.
Bruzzi, S. (2005). Bringing up Daddy: Fatherhood and Masculinity in Post-War Hollywood.
London: BFI Publishing.
Brydon, S. (2009). Men at the heart of mothering: finding mother in Finding Nemo. Journal
of Gender Studies, 18, 131-146. doi: 10.1080/09589230902812448
Bryman, A. (2004). The Disneyization of Society. London: SAGE Publications.
Cheu, J. (2013). Diversity in Disney Films: Critical Essays on Race, Ethnicity, Gender,
Sexuality and Disability. Jefferson: McFarland.
Clark, J. (2014). Postfeminist masculinity and the complex politics of time: contemporary
quality television imagines a pre-feminist world. New Review of Film and Television
Studies, 12, 445-462. doi: 10.1080/17400309.2014.945322
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the
concept. Gender & Society 19, 829-859. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639
Davidoff, L. & Hall, C. (1987). Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle
Class, 1780-1850. Chicago: University Press of Chicago.
Douglas, S. & Michaels, M. (2005). The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and
How it Has Undermined All Women. New York: Free Press.
Dow, B. (2006). The traffic in men and the Fatal Attraction of postfeminist masculinity.
Womens Studies in Communication, 29, 113-131. doi:
10.1080/07491409.2006.10757630
Freeman, E. (2005). Monsters, Inc.: notes on the neoliberal arts education. New Literary
History, 36, 83-95.
Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

17
Gilbert, J. (2005) Men in the Middle: Searching for Masculinity in the 1950s. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Gillam, K. & Wooden, S. R. (2008). Post-princess models of gender: The New Man in
Disney/Pixar. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 36, 2-8. doi:
10.3200/JPFT.36.1.2-8
Giroux, H. & Pollock, G. (2010). The Mouse that Roared: Disney and the End of Innocence.
Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hines S. & Ayres B. (2003). Introduction. In B. Ayres (Ed.) The Emperors Old Groove:
Decolonizing Disneys Magic Kingdom (pp. 1-12). New York: Peter Lang.
Haas, L. (1995). Eighty-six the mother: murder, matricide, and good mothers. In E. Bell,
Haas, L. & Sells, L. (Ed.), From Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender, and
Culture (pp. 193-211). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Hamad, H. (2010). Hollywoods hot dads: tabloid, reality and scandal discourses of
celebrity post-feminist fatherhood. Celebrity studies, 1, 151-169. doi:
10.1080/19392397.2010.482270.
Hamad, H. (2013). Postfeminism and Paternity in Contemporary U.S. Film: Framing
Fatherhood. New York: Routledge.
Hamamoto, D. (1989). Nervous Laughter: Television Situation Comedy and Liberal
Democratic Ideology. New York: Praeger.
Haywood, C & Mac an Ghaill, M. (2003). Men and Masculinities. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Hentges, B. & Case, K. (2013). Gender representations on Disney Channel, Cartoon Network
and Nickelodeon broadcasts in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 7,
319-333. doi: 10.1080/17482798.2012.729150
Johansen, S. (2001). Family Men: Middle-Class Fatherhood in Early Industrializing America.
New York: Routledge.
Kimmel, M. (2012). Manhood in America: a Cultural History (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
King, C. R., Lugo-Lugo, C. R. & Bloodsworth- Lugo, M. K. (2010). Animating Difference:
Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Contemporary Films for Children. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield.

Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

18
Lacroix, C. (2004). Images of animated others: the orientalization of Disneys cartoon heroes
from The little mermaid to The hunchback of Notre Dame. Popular Communication, 2,
213-229. doi: 10.1207/s15405710pc0204_2
LaRossa, R. (1997). The Modernization of Fatherhood: A Social and Political History.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Leverenz, D. (2003). Paternalism Incorporated: Fables of American Fatherhood, 1865-1940.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Leverenz, D. (1998). Tomboys, bad boys, and Horatio Alger: when fatherhood became a
problem. American Literary History, 10, 219-236. doi:10.1093/alh/10.1.219
Li-Wollmer, M. & Lapointe, M. E. (2003). Gender transgression and villainy in animated
film. Popular Communication, 1, 89-109. doi: 10.1207/S15405710PC0102_2
Lugo-Lugo, C. & Bloodsworth-Lugo, M. (2009) Look out new world, here we come?: race,
racialization, and sexuality in four childrens animated films by Disney, Pixar, and
DreamWorks. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 9, 166-178.
doi:10.1177/1532708608325937
McRobbie, A. (2004). Postfeminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Studies, 4, 255264. doi: 10.1080/1468077042000309937.
Modleski, T. (1991). Feminism without Women: Culture and Criticism in a Postfeminist
Age. New York: Routledge.
Oliver, M. & Green, S. (2001). Development of gender differences in childrens responses to
animated entertainment. Sex Roles, 45, 67-88. doi:0360-0025/01/700-0067/0
Rattigan, N. & McManus, T. (1992) Fathers, sons, and brothers. Journal of Popular Film and
Television, 20, 15-23. doi: 10.1080/01956051.1992.9943959
Smoodin, E. (Ed.). (1994). Disney Discourse: Producing the Magic Kingdom. New York:
Routledge.
Sunderland, J. Baby entertainer, bumbling assistant and line manager: discourses of
fatherhood in parentcraft texts. Discourse Society, 11, 249-274. doi:
10.1177/0957926500011002006
Tanner, L., Haddock S. A., Schindler Zimmerman, T., & Lund, L. K. (2003). Images of
couples and families in Disney feature-length animated films. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 31, 355-373. doi:1080/01926180390223987

Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden

19
Tasker, Y. & Negra, D. (Eds.). (2007). Interrogating Postfeminism: Gender and the Politics
of Popular Culture. Durham: Duke University Press.
Thompson, S. (1961). The Types of the Folktale: A Classification and Bibliography: Antti
Aarnes Verzeichnis der Mrchentypen. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia.
Tosh, J. (2007). A Mans Place: Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian
England. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Towbin, M. A., Haddock, S. A., Schindler Zimmerman, T., Lund L. K., & Tanner, L. R.
(2004). Images of gender, race, age and sexual orientation in Disney feature-length
animated films. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 15(4), 19-44. doi:
10.1300/J086v15n04_02
Ward, A. (2002). Mouse Morality: The Rhetoric of Disney Animated Films. Austin:
University of Texan Press.
Wynn, S. L. & Rosenfeld, L. R. (2003). Father-daughter relationships in Disneys animated
films. Southern Communication Journal, 68, 91-106. doi:
10.1080/10417940309373253
Wooden, S & Gillam, K. (2014). Pixars Boy Stories: Masculinity in a Postmodern Age.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Worthington M. (2004). The motherless Disney princess: marketing mothers out of the
picture. In A. Hall & M. Bishop (Ed.), Mommy Angst: Motherhood in American
Popular Culture (pp. 29-46). Santa Barbara: Praeger.
1

For discussions of the absent mother as a recurring trope in animated films see, for example, Worthington
(2004), Haas (1995), and strm (in press).
2
Father-daughter films tend to concern girls in their late teens, presenting them as young girls in need of
parental guidance and eventually husbandly control (Worthington 2004, p. 2).
3
See, for example, Ayers (2003), Bryman (2004), Cheu (2013), Gillam & Wooden (2008, 2014), Haas (1995),
Lacroix (2004), Li-Vollmer & Lapointe (2003), Smoodin (1994) and Ward (2002).
4
It is noteworthy how both films change the source material in order to provide a dead mother and a father-son
conflict.
5
In Cloudy, the police officer and family are seemingly the only non-white residents in the town. In Chicken, the
only non-white character is Morkubine Porcupine, who may be intended to be perceived as African-American,
although that is far from clear. The character Runt of the Litters connection to Barbra Streisand, and Gloria
Gaynors I will survive may be intended to signal homosexuality, but this theme is not developed.

Berit strm
Department of Language Studies
Ume University
901 87 Ume
Sweden